Does going against John Calvin mean going against God?

[Clare73]

The issue is not free will, the issue is dispostion--preferences, which governs the will.
We choose what we prefer.
The Holy Spirit works in the disposition, giving us to prefer the things of God, which
the will then freely and willingly chooses the things of God.
God does not violate the free will of man, he uses it to bring men to himself.

I wish. But we still have that darn Free Will.

Precisely. . .that is my point. . .our free will was never violated, it freely and willingly made its choice.

 

[Bobber]

Mac Arthur is saying that Calvin teaches the sovereignty of God which is presented in the Scriptures, therefore, objection to Calvin's teaching would be going against the sovereignty of God.

The Bible teaches the sovereignty of God, but hold on now.....what does this mean? It doesn't have to mean what Calvin taught. Going against what Calvin taught does not mean you're going against what the Bible ACTUALLY teaches about this subject.

 

[renniks]

Precisely. . .that is my point. . .our free will was never violated, it freely and willingly made its choice

Not if God determined what we would choose.

 

[Clare73]

Not if God determined what we would choose.

You don't understand the definition of free will. Please show how that violates this definition.

"Free will is the (ability) power to choose what one prefers without external force or constraint."

 

[Clare73]

Mac Arthur is saying that Calvin teaches the sovereignty of God which is presented in the Scriptures, therefore, objection to Calvin's teaching would be going against the sovereignty of God.

The Bible teaches the sovereignty of God, but hold on now.....what does this mean? It doesn't have to mean what Calvin taught. Going against what Calvin taught does not mean you're going against what the Bible ACTUALLY teaches about this subject.

I was explaining what MacArthur said, not what I said.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Not if God determined what we would choose.

If God determined what we would choose, then any judgment of us would be invalid. Any unbeliever would have a valid defence in the judgment - that he did not have the opportunity to make a personal choice, so he cannot be found guilty of not taking advantage of a salvation he could not choose. And a believer could not be rewarded for the outcomes of his salvation if it was chosen for him in the same way as a soldier is ordered to do his duty without him being able to choose for himself whether he wanted to do it or not.

 

[renniks]

You don't understand the definition of free will. Please show how that violates this definition.

"Free will is the (ability) power to choose what one prefers without external force or constraint."

Lol, well if it's already chosen then you are certainly forced to choose it whether you know it or not.

 

[renniks]

If God determined what we would choose, then any judgment of us would be invalid. Any unbeliever would have a valid defence in the judgment - that he did not have the opportunity to make a personal choice, so he cannot be found guilty of not taking advantage of a salvation he could not choose. And a believer could not be rewarded for the outcomes of his salvation if it was chosen for him in the same way as a soldier is ordered to do his duty without him being able to choose for himself whether he wanted to do it or not.

Exactly.

 

[Jipsah]

I wish. But we still have that darn Free Will.

No doubt, that's what leads us to destruction. Salvation isn't an imposition, it's a rescue. We jump into Niagara Of Our Own Free Will, God pulls us out before we go over the falls. That's a rescue. That's being saved. Once our vaunted Free Will tosses us into the river, it's helpless. We're still free - to be smashed on the rocks at the base of the falls. Our will is unhindered, but it's helpless to get us out of the water. We can call for help, but the calling itself doesn't affect our rescue, either someone else saves us, or we die.

THere's no debate that we possess Free Will; we prove it every time we sin. The trick is that Will, free or otherwise, doesn't save anyone. We have to be rescued, and only God can do that. And in the saving, He requires neither our aid nor our permission. The lifeguard doesn't ask you permission to drag you our of the water any more than the EMT asks if it's OK with you for him to use the defibrillator if you're in cardiac arrest. Ooooh, isn't that the same as rape? Ponder on that and get back to me.

Free Will is remarkably good at getting us into jams and relatively worthless at getting us out. On top of thqat, it ain't all that free. There's a reason why weight loss schemes are a multi-gigabuck industry. The will to lay off the vittles is there, but somehow folks find they aren't free from compulsion in doing it. Ever tried to give up smoking? Isn't easy, is it? Neither is breaking an opioid habit. The will is there, but freedom to act? Much less so. The same is true in many things, The will is there, but the freedom, for whatever reason, is not.

So salvation a matter of "Free Will"? If so, most if not all of us have a reserved seat in that proverbial handbasket.

 

[Clare73]

You don't understand the definition of free will. Please show how that violates this definition.

"Free will is the (ability) power to choose what one prefers without external force or constraint."

Lol, well if it's already chosen then you are certainly
forced to choose it whether you know it or not.

Not according to the meaning of "free will."

Well one certainly should not let definitions get in the way of an argument about words.

God's doing you a favor and you argue against it. . .go figure.

Non-responsive.

 

[renniks]

No doubt, that's what leads us to destruction. Salvation isn't an imposition, it's a rescue. We jump into Niagara Of Our Own Free Will, God pulls us out before we go over the falls. That's a rescue. That's being saved. Once our vaunted Free Will tosses us into the river, it's helpless. We're still free - to be smashed on the rocks at the base of the falls. Our will is unhindered, but it's helpless to get us out of the water. We can call for help, but the calling itself doesn't affect our rescue, either someone else saves us, or we die.

THere's no debate that we possess Free Will; we prove it every time we sin. The trick is that Will, free or otherwise, doesn't save anyone. We have to be rescued, and only God can do that. And in the saving, He requires neither our aid nor our permission. The lifeguard doesn't ask you permission to drag you our of the water any more than the EMT asks if it's OK with you for him to use the defibrillator if you're in cardiac arrest. Ooooh, isn't that the same as rape? Ponder on that and get back to me.

Free Will is remarkably good at getting us into jams and relatively worthless at getting us out. On top of thqat, it ain't all that free. There's a reason why weight loss schemes are a multi-gigabuck industry. The will to lay off the vittles is there, but somehow folks find they aren't free from compulsion in doing it. Ever tried to give up smoking? Isn't easy, is it? Neither is breaking an opioid habit. The will is there, but freedom to act? Much less so. The same is true in many things, The will is there, but the freedom, for whatever reason, is not.

So salvation a matter of "Free Will"? If so, most if not all of us have a reserved seat in that proverbial handbasket.

But God does in a sense, ask your permission. He has a stipulation that we believe on him before he will perform the act of saving us. I can find no scripture telling me that God just drags us out without our cooperation. I can find many stating that belief precedes salvation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Exactly.

“Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” (Hebrews 3:15) shows that we have the choice whether to heed God's voice or to ignore it. When someone shared the Gospel with us, that would have been the voice of God speaking through that person. Or it could have been the preacher in the Gospel service, or it could have been through reading a book that puts forward the Gospel. The warning of Scripture was not to harden our hearts when the voice of God comes to us. If we had no power of choice, the instruction would be pointless.

 

[Bobber]

If God determined what we would choose, then any judgment of us would be invalid. Any unbeliever would have a valid defence in the judgment - that he did not have the opportunity to make a personal choice, so he cannot be found guilty of not taking advantage of a salvation he could not choose. And a believer could not be rewarded for the outcomes of his salvation if it was chosen for him in the same way as a soldier is ordered to do his duty without him being able to choose for himself whether he wanted to do it or not.

That pretty much sums it up. What one has to do to their minds to reason any other way of thinking it could be would be is startling and perplexing.

 

[Butterball1]

That is not the problem.

The problem is we are born condemned (Romans 5:18), and the only thing that matters is faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sin and right standing with God's justice.

It certainly is a problem, even the statement I quoted called it a "problem'. It is a problem for it makes God unjust in condemning men for an innate inability you claim men are born with. If one were born without legs, can he justly be condemned for not walking? Of course not.
Romans 5:18 does not teach UNconditional condemnation of all men no more than it teaches UNconditional justification of that same all men.

 

[Clare73]

It certainly is a problem, even the statement I quoted called it a "problem'. It is a problem for it makes God unjust

He imputes Adam's sin to all men who are fallen just as

he imputes Christ's righteousness to all men who are born again (Romans 5:18-19).

That's perfect justice.

in condemning men for an innate inability you claim men are born with. If one were born without legs, can he justly be condemned for not walking? Of course not.

You do not understand Paul's argument of Romans 5:12-14,
of which Romans 5:18 is Paul's logical conclusion.

 

[Butterball1]

He imputes Adam's sin to all men who are fallen just as

he imputes Christ's righteousness to all men who are born again (Romans 5:18-19).

That's perfect justice.

You do not understand Paul's argument of Romans 5:12-14,
of which Romans 5:18 is Paul's logical conclusion.

That is not what Romans 5:18 says.

---you still have the problem of God UNJUSTLY condemning men for an inability men would be innately born with.

---not any of the verses in Romans 5 say men are UNCONDITIONALLY condemned/made sinners, people read that idea into the verses. None of the verse say that men are UNCONDITIONALLY made righteous /justified.
Men are CONDITIONALLY made righteous/justified when men choose to have faith, Romans 5:1. Men are CONDITIONALLY made righteous/justified when they choose to transgress and sin Romans 5:12.
There is no example in the Bible of men being UNCONDITIONALLY made sinners without first having sinned or UNCONDITIONALLY made righteous without first doing righteousness.

 

[Clare73]

That is not what Romans 5:18 says.

It is if you understand it.

Romans 5:18-19 are two contrasting parallels between
disobedience/sin/condemnation and obedience/justification/righteousness,

the condemnation accounted/credited/imputed to all men born of Adam and
the righteousnes accounted/credited/imputed to all men born of Christ,

just as righteousness was credited/accounted/imputed to Abraham (Romans 4:3-5; Genesis 15:6)

The carefully constructed parallels of Romans 5:18-19 are destroyed if any action of mankind is involved.
Just as justification/righteousness is not because of what men did,
so sin/condemnation is not because of what men did.

And the parallels are perfect justice:
a remedy acquired with no personal performance just as (v.19)
the condemnation was acquired with no personal performance
is the infinite wisdom (which is not man's wisdom) of God's perfect justice.

For his thoughts are not our thoughts,
neither are our ways his ways.
As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are God ways higher than our ways
and his thoughts than our thoughts.
--Isaiah 55:8-9

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Calvin's view of a minister (and this would include himself) as one who recognises that the church's foundation is Christ, that one minister might plant the seed, and other ministers and pastors water it; but it is God who causes the growth.

All a minister or pastor can do is to prepare the ground for the seed, weed it and water it as the seed grows into a plant which eventually bears fruit. The minister cannot cause the church to bear fruit - winning of souls to Christ, growth in grace of believers. Only God can achieve that.

All the pastor can do is to hold and use the watering can. And that is all Calvin sees himself to be, nothing more.

When one actually reads Calvin himself, one sees it quite clearly. As the Scripture asks: "Who is Paul, who is Apollos? Who is Calvin? Who is your pastor?" The Scriptural answer is: "Servants of God who bring you to faith in Christ." Nothing more.

Anything else is idolatrous hero worship - putting man in the place of Christ.

Not sure what it has to do with my post, but reminds me of the saying "some Calvinists are more Calvinist than Calvin."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Not sure what it has to do with my post, but reminds me of the saying "some Calvinists are more Calvinist than Calvin."

I have read Calvin's commentary on John's Gospel and 1 John, and am part way through 1 Corinthians. To date, I have read nothing that these "Calvinists" reckon that he teaches. In fact, for many verses of Scripture he gives the range of popular interpretations, and says that he rejects some, can live with others, and has one that he likes the best of all. I think that he is quite fair in what he says, and he doesn't come across as dogmatic as some "Calvinists" do.

Of course he is a man of his time, and is totally opposed to what he called the "papal" view and often refers to it as nonsense. As far as the notion that if a person is part of the elect he can do what he likes in terms of willful sin and still be saved, he calls such people "fanatics". He comes across as strongly believing that the evidence of a genuine conversion is a hatred of sin and an overarching desire to live a holy life.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I have read Calvin's commentary on John's Gospel and 1 John, and am part way through 1 Corinthians. To date, I have read nothing that these "Calvinists" reckon that he teaches. In fact, for many verses of Scripture he gives the range of popular interpretations, and says that he rejects some, can live with others, and has one that he likes the best of all. I think that he is quite fair in what he says, and he doesn't come across as dogmatic as some "Calvinists" do.

Of course he is a man of his time, and is totally opposed to what he called the "papal" view and often refers to it as nonsense. As far as the notion that if a person is part of the elect he can do what he likes in terms of willful sin and still be saved, he calls such people "fanatics". He comes across as strongly believing that the evidence of a genuine conversion is a hatred of sin and an overarching desire to live a holy life.

A good example of how theolgians are just one person themselves, we really shouldn't Paul and Apollos them. Perhaps instead of studying books of dead people of a dead culture, practical lessons should take priority in religious teaching.